Well they seem to like it. For me the key issues are speed and size. More important than range - after all 50/75 (APS-C) can be cropped to 80/120 without any significant image degradation on 16/24Mp. So its down to size. Not having seen one I can't tell but I bet it's smaller than the CZ16-80. Sounds OK to me.

I was interested to read DK's positive comment on the E-mount 16/2.8, which I think is great too. Seems to me things are getting pretty good but there will always be those who will find fault in anything so I guess one just has to accept that.

An example of this is the attitude to noise. I went yesterday to the Steve McCurry exhibition at the Chris Beetles gallery here in London. There are some great images, including the iconic one. But all of those taken pre 1995-2000 are full of noise at the 20x24 mag prints in the exhibition. Yes, full of it, even in non crepuscular conditions. Doesn't stop them being priced at £2300 to £12,900 for editions ranging from 15 to 90! So, I have to ask myself whether the critics arent all getting too hung up about technology when they should be thinking more about technique!

AFAIK, the Sony 16-50/2.8 is a modified Tamron 17-50/2.8. Don't get me wrong -- i love the Tamron 17-50/2.8, and the Sony's a great lens too -- just that you're paying extra for the built-in AF motor and the slightly wider AoV on the wide-end. For some, those two factors will be worth every penny.

AFAIK, the Sony 16-50/2.8 is a modified Tamron 17-50/2.8. Don't get me wrong -- i love the Tamron 17-50/2.8, and the Sony's a great lens too -- just that you're paying extra for the built-in AF motor and the slightly wider AoV on the wide-end. For some, those two factors will be worth every penny.

Turns out the author was only speculating, although it makes a lot of sense to me.

I am guessing that Sony might have originally planned on having both the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and 17-50/2.8 lenses converted to A-mount to fill-out their lineup of consumer-level f/2.8 zooms, and perhaps at one time might have released the 16-50 alongside the 28-75... but i think they also wanted to save the 16-50 release to go with the A700 replacement. Given that the A700 replacement was delayed while they tested and refined the new EVF module, i believe the 16-50 could have been ready around the same time as the 28-75, but they held off on it until the A77 was ready.

I myself was so so so looking forward to this lens and then I saw one tiny spec that made me cry! I really was hoping this lens would finish my final link and be 77mm dia like my 24-70,200G,400G and tokina 11-16. I do like the performance of the tamron 17-50 mm and agree Doc that the improved water resistance and SSS does really look good especially for the price but I really hate using step up rings. I have a solid set of B+W 77mm KSM CPU,linear polarizer, ND's and Variable ND. 72mm is such an odd size. The only lens that can match that dia is the 85 1.4 which is not a normal carry around lens. I am curious to see how it really performs compared to the tamron 17-50 but I just wish it could have been 77mm dia. The difference between 72 and 77 would have nothing.

Lens focal lengths are just what the manufacturer decides to say they are. For many years Popular Photography would show the measured focal lengths in their lens reviews. Almost always the short end of a zoom is longer than specified and the long end is shorter. It sort of seems like most of the manufacturers try to get it within about 5% of the marked amount. So, a 28-85mm might really be a 29.3-81.1mm lens. I remember in 1991 I wanted to get an ultra-wide angle zoom for my Minolta 7xi. Before the internet so I just read reviews in magazines. At the time the Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 was new and unlike just about every other lens the measured focal length at the short end was actually shorter. I think it was 19.5mm-33.5mm. The other ultra-wides that were marked as being 20mm at the short end were all more like 21mm or longer. I remember that the Tokina overall got a very good review and the SQF ratings were quite high. I still have it, but haven't used it since my 2000 trip to Vietnam. Heavy metal lens and not good for backpack travel.

The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM is exactly 77mm. And that lens is simply in another league when compared to the Tamron. The OS+HSM deliver the real speed and stability. It's even possible to shoot with a single press even in the poor artificial light, no slow prefocusing needed.

I tried a 17-50 HSM sigma last year when it came out and I compare it to the 28-75 HSM performance. Both were nice lenses but I I thought both were very soft. I agree speed and even build are way better but the picture quality was not. I never got as good results as with the tamron even when mounted on a tripod. Either I got a really really good Tamron or the 17-50 hsm and 28-75 hsm were both just not great quality. When comparing the 28-75HSM even to the 28-75 KM blows it away. I wrote about that a ways back. I just haven't been happy with the sharpness of any sigma I have ever tried but I have only tried the 17-50 and 28-75 and neither I thought were up to par compared to tamron. I am not badmouthing them in any means for I have only tried those 2 lenses. My problem also is I am comparing any lens I shoot to my 24-70 ZA, 200G, 400G and 11-16 tokina which I feel are among the best sony has.

Generally speaking, the Sigma 17-50 is a very sharp lens, ways sharper than Tamron 17-50 at f/2.8.

I don't really have a good sample to share right now, but here's a 100% centre crop shot right after the sunset at 1/30s shutter speed, f/2.8, 17mm, ISO1250 pushed about more 2 stops (the centre was a shadow area, hence the noise).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum